Index  |  Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3     Page 4     Page 5  |  Page 6   |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Download

IWMC - World Conservation Trust
MAINPAGE

SUSTAINABLE USE

ELEPHANTS
FISH
MAMMALS
REPTILES
SEALS
SEA TURTLES
SHARKS
WHALES

ABOUT IWMC

CENSORED

CONTACT IWMC

eNEWSLETTERS
December
EVENTS CALENDAR
MEDIA RELEASES

SEARCH

WEB LINKS

eNewsletter

December 2001

IWMC
World Conservation Trust

 
Consistency in Conservation Decisions
The European Dilemma

 

The 15-member European Union faces an embarrassing dilemma because of inconsistency of enforcement efforts in the matter of smuggling of protected wildlife. Some nations in the Union apply severe fines and stiff jail sentences, while others do not even consider that wildlife smuggling is a crime. This inconsistency of enforcement effort is frustrating officials who say that CITES regulations are not being followed, even though the EU passed a common wildlife trade law four years ago.

A two day workshop was held in Frankfurt, Germany, on November 5 and 6, sponsored by TRAFFIC, the IUCN, the EU, the CITES Secretariat, WWF Germany, and the German Wildlife Agency, BFN. The purpose of the meeting was to develop recommendations to improve wildlife protection through better coordination of law enforcement networks and consistent guidelines for prosecution and sentencing. Those attending also called for programs in public education, since the general public is unaware that a problem exists.

Gross violations of CITES regulations have resulted in illegal trade and transport into Europe of endangered orangutans, gibbons, reptiles and birds, according to one IUCN spokesperson, who added that the EU is "one of the largest marketplaces in the world" for such illegal traffic.

The most significant outcome of the conference was the recommendation that investigations and prosecutions be uniformly and strictly applied among all EU members, so as to adequately protect both wildlife species and endangered habitats all over the world. Two programs for decisions on appropriate fines and prison terms were discussed and it was anticipated that these would form the basis of sentencing guidelines across Europe, in a coordinated effort to combat environmental crime with harsh penalties.

While this effort is commendable, it must be noted that wildlife conservation in the EU is also in need of some serious consideration. In France, a ban on trapping of foxes has led to a situation in which some 5,000 people are treated with shots to prevent rabies every year, because the out of control fox population has its ups and downs in periodic rabies outbreaks, and rural people are often bitten. In Germany, beaver are now getting so numerous that they are damaging vast acreages with their dam and flood projects. In the UK, the ban on trapping has resulted in a similar fox explosion, although rabies has not entered that country yet through the Chunnel. English red foxes are invading towns, villages, and even London, where they live on garbage and handouts from bemused urbanites who don't know how to react to these wild animals. Also in the UK, feral mink, originally escaped from fur farms, are wreaking havoc on the island nation's indigenous bird population, yet there are no plans to curb them through trapping, which is the most efficient and environmentally safe method of control. Although the Netherlands has banned trapping, it makes an exception for control of its muskrat population, so as to keep the heads of the Dutch above water.

In addition to these two issues of inadequate law enforcement of trade in protected wildlife and the lack of resolve to control species in their own countries, the EU nations are among the staunchest of those opposed to the rational management of elephants in Southern Africa and India, and are adamantly insisting that there be no resumption of commercial whaling for human consumption, regardless of the abundance of target species, or the impact of whales on marine habitats and fish stocks.

IWMC regrets that the pressures of certain lobby groups, a poorly informed and hide-bound media, and a general lack of public education on wildlife issues, has resulted in this state of affairs in western civilization. True international maturity and science-based decision making in conservation issues can only develop when a significant proportion of the citizenry in each nation is finally affected by its own wildlife problems and made aware of other environmental dilemmas caused by poor management decisions. That awareness, communicated to national leaders, can then encourage a long overdue change in public policy on wildlife and habitat. How long will it take before Europe and the rest of the West develop their own true conservation courage and foresight?